Messy or Mute?

In this episode of While I've Got You, Gabby asks whether a messy, imperfect version of allyship is still better than staying mute altogether. She digs into the blurry line between performative allyship and virtue signaling — why a regular person posting about their volunteer work gets read as fake, while someone with real influence can stay silent until it costs them nothing. She lands on a reframe that cuts through both conversations: the question was never whether people saw you do the good thing, it's whether there's a gap between what you show and what's real. Along the way, she catches herself living the exact fear she's naming, and closes not with a verdict, but an invitation — messy still beats mute, as long as it's rooted in something true.

Transcript

Copy Transcript Copied

SPEAKER_01 0:00

Who gives a rat's ass why I'm doing the work and why I'm telling you about it? Especially if the work is adding a to that organization.

SPEAKER_00 0:11

I'm Gabby, and you're listening to While I've Got You. Let's start the show.

SPEAKER_01 0:27

One of the things that really helps me create for this podcast is finding things to respond to. And that's not always easy. It definitely means that I have to go out of my way to listen to, observe, research different conversations to see what sparks joy inside of my body and becomes something that I want to talk about. So the way that this conversation started, the way that this idea came to me, is a little bit different than what I have expressed or explained at the beginning of other episodes. So I want to give that caveat. The two pieces that came together to create this conversation was me researching different topics, different creators, different individuals with podcasts, etc. And coming across one of the pillars and things that Z Way does very well on her show is getting different celebrities and just her guests in general to have to, in a very uncomfortable way, come face to face or terms with the biases or the lack of information they have in the areas that they have become like corporate tokens for. Essentially having to come face to face with their allyship in the ways in which it's not necessarily harmful, but it lacks any true intentionality behind it because of their status, their fame, their sponsorships, their positioning, etc. And also separately listening to a podcast and a comedian being accused of virtue signaling because they talk about where the proceeds of some of their comedy shows go to. And when she said it, I honest to God had no idea what virtue signaling was. And I was like, huh, let's give that a quick little Google. And this is what Google said. So virtue signaling is the public expression of a moral, political, or social viewpoint with the primary intent of demonstrating one's good character or moral correctness, often without taking meaningful action. So both of these things are like riffing in my brain, where there's this performative allyship that Z-Way makes her guest really confront, and this accusation of sharing the work that you're doing as being seen as virtue signaling. And so it made me come to a thesis, a hype, a hypothesis, I almost said hypotenuse, a hypothesis of is performative allyship still better than no allyship if the information that's being put out there is still true. And the same goes for virtue signaling. Does the why matter if the outcomes benefit organizations doing the work? For example. I get that there's a need for authenticity. And why is there so much criteria on what philanthropy or like doing good work looks like? And in turn, what being an ally looks like. Especially in instances when the criteria is saying things other than we need more, this version is not enough. For example, I think it's completely valid to say that the way an ally shows up when it is performative in nature or has no intention or merit or no actions backing that allyship, I understand calling it out and saying, hey, this is great in theory, but there's still a lot of work to be done. And so we need you to stop talking about it and actually be about it. But I don't understand it in the inverse of this same, same but different conversation when it comes to virtue signaling, when regardless of the intention, regardless of the why behind me telling you that I volunteered this week with this great organization, beyond that, the conversation seems to be like, and what? You're only telling us this because you want to seem great. Who cares? Who cares? Because at the truth, like the truth of the matter is at the end of the day, there's still a highlighting happening on that organization. It's like when it specifically comes to virtue signaling, when you are a regular person doing work or like a B list celebrity, if you have any number of followers or any level of notoriety that's not billionaire status, you sharing the work that you're doing is negative. That definition from Google, none of it sounded positive. None of it was like, and then I took in my I want to do the Shark Town monologue so bad. And then I took in my sister and my sister's baby, and he lost his arms and his legs. Like none of it's giving that. And if it is, who cares? When on the flip side, when someone becomes a billionaire, it is now their responsibility to end all the world's problems. No amount of their philanthropy or their work is considered to be enough because there's a general idea that we're not going to get into today on whether or not billionaires should even exist. And if they have access to all these resources, they should be spreading the wealth. But when a lower level, whatever creator person on a notoriety standpoint is like, hey, I'm doing the work with what little I have, now it's negative. Again, what are the standards of allyship? The standards of giving back? Philanthropy feels like too big of a word for what I'm talking about. What is the standard for allyship and the standard for giving back that determine if it is performative or should be painted in a negative lens or not? And why can't both attempts be helpful and be true? On the one hand, like I mentioned, I can understand the ways in which allyship, when it's not backed by true and actual action, can be disappointing. And the calling out necessarily can be more of a call to action of, hey, this is great. I'm glad you're talking about these things. And there's still so much work to be done in these areas that your words and your dissemination of information is not enough. And I also, in some ways, feel like as long as the information that's being shared is not harmful and is not hurtful and does not have a negative impact on the communities that you are performing allyship for, why isn't that seen as valid and helpful and true? And on the flip side, again, of this same, same but different conversation with virtue signaling, if everyone gets to a place where we're so afraid to talk about the good deeds or the work that we're doing, we're missing out on opportunities to get others involved. Like if I can't post about the organization I volunteer with because someone might say I'm virtue signaling or trying just posting this group photo of me volunteering to gain brownie points, then I never post it and you never hear about this organization doing incredible work because now I'm being shamed for the work that I'm doing. Who gives a rat's ass why I'm doing the work and why I'm telling you about it? Especially if the work is adding aid to that organization. As someone who has worked with nonprofits, nonprofits, that's me virtue signaling. Everybody, relax. As someone who has worked at a nonprofit, there is not usually, hence the terms nonprofit, a massive budget to go and market. There is usually a very small team doing everything from grant writing to outreach to fundraising. And if one person, like a comedian, wants to say, hey, I'm a part of this really great organization, and the proceeds of this show are going to go to that organization, why are we making it a negative thing? I think everyone needs to chill the F out and just come to terms with and be a little bit more understanding that as long as we remain in the safe part of the performative allyship and our mediocre or mid-level quote unquote performance isn't someone being a complete and utter fraud. I think we gotta show a little bit of kindness and in turn ask ourselves, what are we as individuals doing to make the world better for other people? Whether it is being a mid-level, mediocre ally or by giving back to a community and then telling people about your good deeds. Imagine the world that we would live in if we just let humans be humans and let them share and give and grow without it having to become a definitive indicator of who they are as a person. All of this to say, and here's where the contradiction sort of lies in that murky gray area that we usually get into on this podcast: visibility and performance aren't necessarily on the same axis. And that's where the actual like confusion in this discourse and the nuance happens. The real issue isn't did people see you do this? And if you're not watching this video on YouTube or Apple Podcasts or Spotify Podcasts, if you're not watching this in video, I'm doing air quotes around did people see you do this, quote unquote. It's is there a gap between what you show and what's real? For example, silence on things when it won't be rewarded, or silence on things when there's no real cost to you as an individual based on the outcome, or just like a flat contradiction. So, like saying you believe in a woman's right to choose and then voting for politicians that don't believe in a woman's right to access abortions. For example, this is a examplar perspective from the outside is not a huge like Taylor Swift fan or Swifty. I'm a fan in the way that I'm a fan of all women doing work. Do your thing, girl, whatever. For example, that conversation that happened with her not really saying anything about where she stood politically when it came to our most recent US election between Trump and Kamala Harris, like waiting until the last minute to say where she was throwing her vote felt performative. And I think when you get to a certain level, whether you want it or not, you don't get to be wishy-washy or silent about your beliefs anymore. And I especially think that that performative allyship should be confronted in an example like this, where at the end of the at the end of the day, the outcome of that election is not going to have significant repercussions for someone of a influential status, a financial status of all of the statuses, as someone like Taylor Swift. That's when I'm like, okay, the allyship, it's giving performative. I hear you call it out, do your thing, Z-Way. And of course, it's a completely different episode, but there is a conversation about getting to a level of fame and what you owe for that fame, like what someone of her stature owes with that kind of reach. Maybe owes is the wrong word, the level of responsibility that she has. And that's not this episode. So everybody focus. Stop trying to distract me. This episode is for someone who has real work andor causes that they're a part of and has gone quiet about it for this fear of being shamed because for some reason any visibility into your work now reads as suspicious and disingenuous, especially in a society that is giving this blanket judgment and casting this blanket doubt and can't actually tell the difference between being seen and being visible and being fake. I think the general blanket should be be intentional, don't cause harm, like be mindful of the way your quote unquote allyship shows up. Don't cause harm in the attempt to look like something. And also don't be such a skeptical asshole that you shame people's version, especially not people's best versions of allyship and best versions of community and giving back because you've deemed it some level of unacceptable and fake. I think a good example that happened while I was outlining this podcast was my fear of even using Taylor Swift as an example in this conversation because I have concern or some arbitrary level of fear that the Swifties are gonna come after me one day for this episode. Which is kind of proving my own point that this fear of backlash is so present and so loud that me even using her name in a generic example made me pause. I almost didn't even say Home Girl's name. And that's weird because it's an example. And using that as an example has no basis, no foundation to describe or name or put me in a box or define who I am as a person, good, bad, or indifferent. If your performance, again, quote unquote, she quote unquote in a lot in this episode. If your performance of philanthropy, of giving back, or of allyship is rooted in a helpful, still learning place, do your thing. And don't let the fear of messing up, specifically in this giving back space, don't let the fear of messing up stop you from doing good. And don't let it stop you from sharing good. I think again, I want to make sure that I'm clear on the disclaimer that when it comes to allyship, there can be repercussions, there can be danger, there can be harm done from well-meaning people and well-meaning allies. So that's why this conversation is sort of same, same but different. I want to be very clear that even with the best intentions and even with the best laid plans, even with the purest of hearts, being mindful of how you share your allyship, how you share your words when there's no actions to back it, how you share the way that you're doing the work and supporting a community, whether verbally, whether through your own learning, etc., make sure that it's rooted in something concrete and true, like contact and connection and community with the demographic of people you were claiming to be an ally to. Like make sure it's rooted in something so that way you are not unknowingly and unintentionally spreading harm. There's a very, very, very, very fine line in that level of allyship being more words than action backed that I'm talking about. And I don't think that the fear of missing the mark for either scenario, whether allyship or philanthropy, giving back, etc., should stop you from doing the work. And it shouldn't stop you from sharing your journey in that work. Sometimes that's the most important piece of inviting people in, of letting other people know that this is what my journey of supporting a community outside of myself, supporting a community that community that I don't necessarily identify with, this is what it has looked like on this journey. And regardless of where you're starting, you can also be on this journey too. I think the general gist of this episode is that if your performance is rooted in helpful and in process perspectives, again, one more time for the people in the back. Helpful and in process, if your performance is rooted in those two things, then I feel like you can and should be able to just do your thing and not have to have the fear of messing up keep you from doing good and sharing good. And with the pretty little asterisk, maybe do these things, whether they're called performative allyship or whether it's called virtue signaling, maybe do these things with the perspective that your performance and what you put out there, if not from that place of say with me, helpful and in process, can cause real harm to the groups that you're trying to be an ally or provide aid to. Woo, help me, Lord. I hope that made sense. It was a hard time to outline it. I'm not at all questioning your intelligence because I know you you got it, you figured it out. I'm questioning my ability to process and say out loud my own thoughts. But maybe that's why you listen and why you love me. It's definitely why I love you. Thanks so much for listening, and I'll catch you next time. Bye.